1. as the main protagonist on that threaad i thought throwing this in was a bit banal

I know there is a lot of history between the two groups but i think its kinda dumb to be in different outhouses throwing poop at each other. Now ripping the piss out of each other from your own ojthouse is a okay.

8. I hear you. However, this is "seen on du". Its like Ice Road Truckers, but with DU.

2. Did you notice the original article is like 6 years old?

We're still hearing the same old shit, heck..we've been hearing it for decades.....but the age of the piece gives some perspective too. For looking around today, it would appear the anti sex forces haven't made one bit of progress over the last 6 years in instituting their prudish agenda..

7. i figure we can all learn from each other.

97. Not for long.

You can't bring rational perspectives there, or realistic ones, without getting the boot.

I think I brought up that women didn't like being reminded that they are just as capable of evil as men are.... and they booted me. Ostensibly it was to prove they weren't at all petty.

Being that people expect the same behaviors from others that they themselves are prone to, the thankfully small number of misandrists don't post directly to Men's Group threads in order to avoid being banned. Instead, they anonymously alert on random (and likely every) posts in these thread in order to 'punish' the menfolk for, well, having a laugh.

I'll bet more than half the posts in this thread have been alerted on.

5. I'm sorry, I still can't get past the burka/bikini cartoon thread

9. Here's the best part

She speculates that the current climate is partly ''a backlash to feminism, a way of protecting male egos, and men insisting on retaining a power structure sexually if they can't retain it in areas of employment and parenting and so forth. It's a way to hang on to a male-dominated paradigm."

But Eller says there is plenty of blame to go around. She and Pamela Paul point also to a schism in the women's movement several decades ago. Some feminists campaigned against pornography, but others viewed that as tantamount to censorship, or did not want to be perceived as anti-men. It divided the women's movement, they say, at a moment when it could have decisively changed the national dialogue on pornography.

First the author seems to admit that the efforts of the anti-sex feminists were counterproductive (which is true), although she blames this on men (predictably). Then the author goes on to suggest that if they had just doubled down on the nutbagery they could have turned things around. Forget the fact that reasonable feminists fully predicted the anti-sex rad-fem crowd would sandbag the 2nd wave movement (which it did). Rather than accept blame for their monumental fuckup, she goes on to blame the book burners also, even though the message of the book burners was identical to the rad-fem's which is why they crawled into bed with the likes of Ed Meese. In other words, it wasn't the rad-fem's fault their efforts turned to shit (as was fully predicted by other feminists). It was the fault of men. It was the fault of the pro-sex feminists. It was the fault of the Christers.

Eller also contends that the ''conservative right, in its eagerness to keep sexuality forbidden, is really just stoking the fire of an appetite for porn, for naughtiness, for the whole lust for sexual transgression." She maintains that if conservative forces were to ''give up their repressive game where sex is concerned," the mainstream manifestations of porn will lose their appeal to a lot of people.

12. The truly sad part is they are convinced by the weakest of evidence presented by unqualified hacks

If you look at the qualifications of the authors of the rad-fem's 'theory' you won't find that any of them have any background in human behavior studies. No sociology. No psychology. No psychiatry. Not even economics or anthropology. These people had literary or arts degrees. Some were college dropouts. One has a law degree. Yet these are the people who will tell you exactly where western culture got it wrong. They will tell you exactly why. And they will tell you exactly what should be done (by force of law if necessary) to restrict or regulate adult consensual behavior among other things in an overall effort to completely reorder society. Oddly enough, the qualifications of those who claim to speak for organized religion are more or less the same, as is their message.

13. I think that's it exactly

Oddly enough, the qualifications of those who claim to speak for organized religion are more or less the same, as is their message.

This is a religion. Not basically, not that it encompasses some aspects of religion. This is a different slant on an old game.

I really see no functional difference between this and any other cult. They are certain they are right based on their own declarations. Their tenets are perfect and inarguable (at least using the only literature sources they will accept). And dissenters aren't merely people with a difference of opinion, no they are downright evil. Truths come not from empirical study but from revelations disseminated by Prophets. No amount of evidence against them will be counted whereas the flimsiest arguments in favor of what they want to believe will be held up as indisputable proof. And so on.

16. Women could put a stop to porn immediately

Stop posing for the pictures! When "Girls Gone Wild" comes around, females need to stop willfully flashing their tits and then signing the legal release afterward. When an ad for nude models is put up, don't answer it. They completely fail to acknowledge that 98-99% of porn, and probably more, is consensual. The women, and men, know come in voluntarily, they sign two or three legal releases, un-coerced. Not only that, after they do it once, the experience is so bad, some of them do it again hundreds of times.

I know we're told that these are psychologically disturbed people. I won't argue against that point now, but even if it were true, unless we're going to declare them insane and make every decision for them, age of consent for sex is 18, and "yes" means "yes." Logically, if "no" is to be respected, they have to give as much respect to "yes." To do less disrespects women in porn more than most porn does.

Though antis don't respect them anyway, but that's a different subject.

18. But that still doesn't affect the fact

Whatever the motivation some women have for doing it, unless they are directly forced, women can stop it, at least as far as hetero porn is concerned. Females make the choice to be in porn. And except for porn that is done by force, which is less than 2%, and likely under 1%, (both figures my guess) it will be gone.

Of course, there's so much free porn available now it can continue to circulate for the foreseeable future without any more production. They literally cannot shut it down now. In fact, the market is so saturated the porn industry is probably going to go under. The only part of it I can see with any potential are webcams. Most of those are just a woman alone with a cam and an Internet connection. Any men in the equation are giving money, not collecting it.

Therefore, anti-porn feminists can't avoid the fight will coming down to women-against-women. The anti-porn faction is scornful to sex workers who won't take the excuses offered about "self-objectification" and aren't contrite about their work. When it breaks down this way, the fight is going to get vicious.

And meanwhile, issue like equal pay will fall by the wayside, and reproductive rights are likely to be rolled back.

That's the immediate future I see for modern-day feminism. It hasn't accomplished anything for thirty years and it might be another thirty before it does. It frustrates me because I consider myself to be pro-feminist.

20. Haven't seen any surveys.

But I expect that it breaks down against porn with a similar proportion to the general population. In other words, not a small minority opposing it. It's probably even a little higher, but only a small minority considers it a priority. If this is true, a larger proportion can be mobilized if the subject heats up. The major difference with the general population, I think, is feminist ideology lets them rationalize more radical action against it.

21. I actually think it's a very small minority that is anti-porn, period.

There are plenty of people who don't personally like it, but that doesn't mean they're against it.

I think the American People are pretty socially liberal- they want the government out of the bodies, bedrooms, and bloodstreams of consenting adults. Despite all the breathless hyperbole we've heard about all-powerful "values voters", most Americans are pro-porn, want pot legalized, and certainly we're close to having a majority in favor of marriage equality for LGBT citizens.

24. Well, we're not going to agree . . .

. . . on the size of it. You have your estimate. I have mine. Neither are supported by any valid surveys I know of. I don't expect to find any, and I'm not willing to interrupt the flow of my life to look.

Of course I think mine is more likely, but I'd call it guess. It's based mostly on a feud I saw play out between pro- and anti- sex factions on youtube. It certainly looked to me like the pros were outnumbered. Another thing, antis were by far dirtier and meaner in the way they fought. So, I don't expect fair play from them.

As late as five years ago, I, too, thought attitudes in this country concerning sex were liberal and set to go further in that direction. I made a few costly personal mistakes because based on it. Therefore, I no longer think that. I think this culture is more likely to collapse completely than it is to accept the sex industry as honorable.

For your last point, what's missing for creating a groundswell against porn is any sense of urgency, in other words, hysteria. They can argue that porn incites violence against women, and some people would even say that they're convinced. Nevertheless, with sex crimes and rapes going down, along with crime in general, it's hard for anyone to act like they're convinced of it. Their feet say something different from their mouths.

If, however, there's a sudden change in crime trends, look for the groundswell.

26. So; what do you "expect to see" on a Discussion Board like DU?

I feel like Forrest Gump, sometimes, myself.. it's like a box of chocolates! Full of surprises.

Sometimes the chocolates are full of motor oil, of course, or moldy cheese.

After I saw several threads full of people hooting, cheering, and gushing with praise over a psychotic rant by a violent woman who shot another human being, where she openly and repeatedly advocated murdering Billions of people, honestly... very little will surprise me, anymore, as to what passes for "acceptable" on this progressive site.

29. Yeah, that line of reasoning is pretty fucking nuts, along with

"the trend in porn to show shaved genitalia is programming men to be attracted to... blah blah blah"

Like, every time you look at smut, BEWARE! you're putting in a new firmware update to the old melon. (Archer, Phrasing!)

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the fad of totally shaved pubes in porn is now going back the other direction, towards hair. And good, because personally, I LIKE hair (what that says about me, I don't know) ... I do! Shit, I can even dig a little underarm hair (very European) or, in some cases, some fine blonde leg hair.

I spent enough time at Dead shows; discovering the wonders of nature, rolling in the rushes, down by the riverside; with sexy hippie women, that my firmware must have been updated repeatedly with that information.

31. It's an odd incongruency

they seem to believe everyone (but themselves of course) are programmed by the patriarchy.

Ok I could get saying that men are behind brainwashing women to keep them subservient. It's crazy but boiler-plate as conspiracies go. But men are also programming themselves to support the patriarchy while running the patriarchy even though it hurts men which is why we have to program ourselves to be part of it and . . . hold on I'm starting to get a nose bleed. Too many contradictory insane ideas at once.

I suppose once you've written your 14th essay on why PIV sex is unnatural and necessarily traumatic and not really enjoyed by anyone then your ability to hold all these absurd ideas at once is pretty much 2nd nature.

45. Programming men to be attracted to (children)?

If these antisexfems (ASF's) would look, (and I'm convinced they never do examine porn, despite their claims) they will notice the men in porn shave themselves, too.

If those ASF's have oral sex to any extent, perhaps it would inform them how irritating pubic hair can be during that act, and how un-erotic it is to have to stop and pick it out of your mouth. And it's un-erotic even to porn audiences.

So far, pornographers have not discovered a fetish for picking hair from teeth. Somehow, I don't think they will. Which means they have to stop shooting or do an edit every time it happens.

Plus, perhaps, porn stars have dyed their hair (on their heads, I mean), and don't want the viewers to know what their natural color is?

There's one other reason: shaved pubes make that area easier to clean. I won't go into the exact reasons why porn stars might find that useful. Use your imagination, if available.

No, it has nothing to do with training men to become pedophiles.

If the claim had any credibility, I would ask what about the trend for porn stars to also have genital piercings. Obviously, this is to make the the women look more like toys. (Same thing as looking like a child.) Never mind that it's generally an aid to reaching orgasm. That's a real child-like trait, there. And how about trend toward larger breasts. Yes, what looks more like a child than a woman with a bra size of 38F?

I think ASF's (soon to be declared a derogatory term) come up with a novel idea and fall in love with it before examining the most obvious facts to see if it's correct. Unfortunately, believing is easy, backpedaling is a bitch, which is why you should be skeptical to begin with.

33. More: "If the liberal peen is keen, the result can only demean"

In the case of the Pussy Riot whoopdeedoo, it seems that quite a lot is going on, most of it untoward, unsavory, and, it goes without saying, antifeminist. Quoth the author of the post, echoing another patriarchy-blaming maxim (If the liberal peen is keen, the result can only demean):
“You can measure the degree of feminism of an action by how men react to it, and if men collectively cheer and celebrate it, then you can be pretty sure there’s something wrong about it, or that it doesn’t somehow support our liberation from men. And as far as I can recall, even the slutwalks didn’t get as much coverage or public appraisal. What was it that men liked so much about Pussy Riot?”

37. Seen on DU™: Women "Misled By Penis Worship"!

Holy FUCK! Is there no end to the perpetual pernicious penetrative patriarchal persecutions of the problematic phallus?

Also, FWIW: Ah, as far as women who, ah, "squirt"? Is not a made up phenomenon, imagined out of thin air for porn- and neither is it peeing. In my experience it is an uncommon ability or trait, but very real.

Some women can do it, and seem to enjoy it.

And it existed BEFORE the widespread availability of internet porn or even a whole ton of graphic video porn, so "made up for porn" doesn't really fit the timeline.

38. I saw that..

I've been with a woman who squirted..and I too can tell you for a fact it's definitely not piss. Some of the misinformation that's spread around here in pursuit of an agenda is at times mind boggling. I just wonder whether it's intentional or not..

40. Once I saw the Wikipedia article, I understood.

It is not an accepted part of the canon or dogma, so it must be attacked. Clearly asserting that women might, in some form, ejaculate, is some kind of sneaky move on the part of the Patriarchy.

Yeah, I've been with at least one woman who did, too, obviously, which is how I know this. And it was in the late 80s.

ETA: I guess it's fashionable in some of these extremist circles, now, to go after Lesbian women who use, ah, implements in their mutual or self-enjoyment. They must be brainwashed in penis-worship, too, it seems.

So many sexual miscreants, so many people who are mistakenly thinking they're "allowed" to make their consenting adult "choices" on how to enjoy "themselves"- so many that must be shown the error of their ways!

41. I didn't even know there was a controversy over this until today...

Prudes, busybodies and authoritarians come in all stripes...how else do you explain the distaste shown over what consenting adults do in private by factions from both the left and the right?

Oh, they all have their respective vehicles and ideas in which to express and attempt to justify their disgust over any act of sex they don't approve of...but what it gets down to is many Americans are just uncomfortable with sex in general and hate to see others enjoying themselves. That's just sad.

43. I kind of prefer the fundies

they object to the same things but at least they don't pretend they have science on their side.

They just throw in "god" and a few hallelujahs and are done with it.

The people that misuse science to push their beliefs really irritate me because they're deliberately blurring the line between fact and faith for their own ends. It took us thousands of years to even get a sizable minority to realize there was a difference.

42. Thing I like most about DU3? It's Magnetic!

44. Don't know where to begin . . .

. . . criticizing that thread. There are so many things wrong with it.

I wish some trained sexologist would give a questionnaire to the antisexfems. (A term soon to be considered the next slur.) I really do bet sex drive would be correlated with their attitude toward porn.

46. And, again, looking at a picture of a naked woman is comitting "eyeball rape!"

God damn eyeball rapist dooodely dooods! Is it any wonder that there is such righteous gender based anger against men (just dont call it "misandry", because that's not a 'legitimate' word) when, by some estimations, fully 98% of them -or more- engage in "eyeball RAPE" on a regular basis?!?

OF COURSE there's a RAPE CULTURE, because every time a man experiences unauthorized arousal looking at an image of a naked woman (heretofore to be referred to as "the oppressed victim") he is engaging in RAPE!!!!

We must take RAPE seriously.... and the best way to do that is to expand the definition of the word to include EVERY TIME A DOOOODELY DOOOD looks at a picture of a naked woman!!!!!!!

47. Oh, I gotta see that... must have missed it somehow

edit: like I`ve said before... all a blog is, is some jackass with an internet connection, time on their hands, and an overly generous opinion if their own worldview, and anyone who tries to point to a blog as some sort of authority on anything is worthy of nothing short of ridicule.

49. Yes. He asked if it was "eyeball rape"....

and the simpering idiot who writes that blog said "yes, it is" and thanked him for "getting it." Now, the phrase goes back to Jim Crow days, usually used by racist right-wing fucksticks as an excuse to lynch or harrass black men for looking at white women.

50. The blog you linked to, and I quote:

So men who look at page 3 are ‘eyeball-raping’ the models? So all women dress like they do because men force them to? So a man can’t be a feminist because, by accident of birth, he’s automatically a patriarchal oppressor?

Yes, yes and yes. You’ve been paying attention after all!

“But wait!” the casual reader might be thinking. “It’s not like some dude is holding a gun to these models’ heads. They’re making a free choice to pose, right?”

Here’s the deal.

Cultural, social and economic pressures combine to make a very powerful force. With that on their side, dudes don’t have to hold guns to women’s heads (usually) to get them to strip for the Male Gaze. Fear of poverty, and the need for validation through male attention do most of the coercing.

So what she's saying there, as I'm sure you're well aware, is YES, it IS "eyeball rape".

Do you disagree? Is looking at a picture of a naked woman NOT eyeball rape? Then perhaps you should march on over to the blog you linked, and tell her so.

But wait, there's more:

Dude Nation then gets to sit back, relax, claim that all of these women are freely choosing to get naked for dudely enjoyment, and bask in unlimited visual access to women’s bodies without feeling the slightest guilt.

Wow, what a setup those dudes have! No wonder they get so nasty when anyone suggests they should part with it!

Don't you find it just the slightest bit funny that here is this blogger fulminating against the private consenting adult behavior of people she's never met, and she's acting like THEY are the problem? "No wonder they get so nasty"? Yeah- because people tend to "get nasty" when total strangers feel entitled to take it upon themselves to try to run their lives for them. Duh. It'd be like Rush Limbaugh saying, "these women like Sandra Fluke, they get to sit back and have sex and use contraception or even get abortions and la-deee-dah they can enjoy themselves and no one even makes them feel guilty about it!!!"

"No wonder they get so nasty when anyone suggests" blah blah blah.

Right, because "anyone" should worry about what is happening in their own god-damn pants, not the pants of the other 7 billion consenting adults on the planet.

52. "male gaze"..?

I had to look that one up. Lets see, some radfem greatest hits include... "objectification", "male gaze", "rape culture", "eyeball rape", "pornification"...I know there are many more all designed to inform us men how evil we are..but misandry doesn't exist..how does that work?

56. It's almost as if some very angry individuals

sat down and asked themselves "what do 'doods' like to do?" and then from that list simply added "rape" or some other qualifier to make it evil.

So you can't look at a pretty woman, you're objectifying her with your male gaze. You can't enjoy porn, you're engaging in eyeball rape. You can't argue against any of this because that's reinforcing the rape culture.

I'm sure if I bothered to look I could find a few essays on why sitting on your couch with some buddies drinking beer and watching football is somehow a diabolical act of the patriarchy.

You know, someone who felt the need to define why every little thing that women did was evil and wrong would be immediately labeled a sexist and sidelined. They certainly would be treated as academics or given prestigious honors and speaking engagements. Weird how the patriarchy only seems to reward sexism these days when it's trashing men.

65. Orwellian Newspeak

See, how Newspeak works is if you want to get rid of a concept, let's just say the concept of useful degree comparatives, because comparison doesn't serve a specific goal, you reassign the language such that the accepted words dilute or eradicate the nuance and therefore the concept in the words they replace.

Say something is good. Then say something else is better. Then say something else is great or the best.

What you do is replace the words with other purportedly equivalent expressions which claim to be the same meaning, but obviously dilute the nuance of the words which deliver the concept.

So you replace better with plus good. And you replace best or great with double plus good. Now one could argue that the substitution is reasonable (insofar as Orwell's world can manage as reasonable) but a second glance offers the idea that comparison (the nuance of better and best) has been removed from the phrases. Comparatives have been replaced by contextless absolutes. Consider better. Before the replacement, better NEEDED comparison phrasing to make sense. It makes sense to say, thing A is better than thng B. It does not make sense to say that thing A is better unless the context names thing B. Otherwise you are compelled to ask "better than what exactly?"

On the other hand, you can say without difficulty that thing A is plus good. In fact it makes no sense to say that thing A is plus good than thing B. Now the words expressing the concept appropriately have been removed, replaced with these empty shells of expression which have effectively removed even the ability to express a value comparison.

So what the eff does this have to do with misandry not existing...

Well, the idea with Newspeak is if you don't want an idea expressed, you remove from consideration the words whose nuance expresses that concept.

Actually, the day someone invented the word misogyny, they invented the word misandry, perhaps without intending, but they did. Such is the nature of a binary concept within a language. If you extend one using a root (gyn) with a prefix (mis), you automatically do so to its binary (andr). So if "misogyny" means the hatred of women, then the second it was conceived of, "misandry" means the hatred of men.

The problem is, misandry doesn't fit the narrative. It implies a duality of hatred, which the narrative claims either A) does not truly exist (misperception), or B) exists but is justifiable and rational, and therefore can't be hate because hate must, by definition, be irrational. So the word is meaningless, and not having a word dilutes the nuance and denies the appropriate expression of the concept.

68. I didn't want to minimize your great post, but I'm glad I got it

72. Most of the terms they use are either rhetorical nonsense or intellectual dishonesty

I've posted a few times about how rad-fem "theory" was developed by people with zero background or education in any sort of human behavior. Those that weren't college dropouts typically had liberal arts degrees. The woman who came up with "male-gaze" had a background in cinematography. It doesn't get any better with the rest of it. Predictably what they came up with was simply psychobabble intended for the consumption of the ignorant masses who would believe it because it told them what they wanted to hear. It's not that hard to convince people they are a victim, especially when everyone agrees who the scapegoat is. When you throw in a few misleading statistics, like women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, you create a body of evidence that at least seems to support your "theory". Finish it off by conflating race discrimination with gender discrimination and the conspiracy theory (the "patriarchy") is complete. Like most conspiracy theories they get imbedded into its believers by the claim that those who disagree or offer conflicting evidence are just part of the conspiracy and are not to be believed under any circumstances. Even other feminists who happen to disagree are written off as tools of the patriarchy and not "real feminists", and their circular argument comes full circle.

70. You forgot self-objectification

58. You guys overuse the word sexist

it's come to mean anyone you dislike.

It's kind of a bad idea to completely bastardize a word like that.

Also from that post:

Also, dude considers me a sexist for finding dude behavior mockworthy! Dudes must never be laughed at. This is the Law of Dudes. Particularly, no one must ever call dudes names. Anyone who does so is a misandrist and a bigot. Because the poor dudes are oppressed, dontchaknow. What chance have dudes ever really had in this world of vicious dude-mocking feminists?

Also, chick considers me a sexist for finding chick behavior mockworthy! Chicks must never be laughed at. This is the Law of Chicks. Particularly, no one must ever call chicks names. Anyone who does so is a misogynist and a bigot. Because the poor chicks are oppressed, dontchaknow. What chance have chicks ever really had in this world of vicious chick-mocking MRAs?

/how long do you suppose *that* post would last? I suppose being able to ruthlessly mock "dudes" and "dude behavior" without being labeled a sexist is another female-privilege that you don't recognize.

64. I personally think the problem they have is...

They tend to use "sexism" and "misogyny" interchangably. Sexism can exist in absence of hatred. Of course, "misogyny" has gotten so over-used and misapplied so as to become a wholly worthless buzz word anymore.

73. In essence that's exactly what sexism is

Just because something is said in jest, doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Blonde jokes reinforce the stereotype that blonde women are stupid and are inherently sexist. Small dick jokes reinforce the stereotype that men are obsessed with the size of their penis and are sexist. As the other poster alluded, sexism does not equal misogyny or misandry, yet too many conflate the two to the point that neither has much meaning.

77. So now that you've been shown to be factually wrong- again- time for the cricket noise, huh?

I mean, i suppose a simple "yeah, I was wrong, you were right"; is too much to ask, huh?

Certainly we're not going to see that blogger be pulled as a source for the op, rebuked, or even any recieve any criticism from the folks promoting her rant, for her use of the phrase "eyeball rape". For, again, playing semantic games with the word "rape", to grind that ever present axe against sexy pictures and nudity.

For muddying the definition of what should be a very strong, unequivocal word- rape.

59. I thought that was an interesting article

in the sense that they got the conclusion they wanted based on the evidence.

Essentially men and women were equal back then because people took care to bury their relatives of either gender, not just men. How we treat our dead reflects on how we treat the living right? So if they're taking care with people based on who they are rather than what gender they were that means they were gender blind.

Unlike today where we throw lavish funerals for men and dump women by the side of the road to rot.

76. Should she die before me

I shall have my wife's body discarded in the most convenient manner possible. I probably will just leave it wherever she falls.

Because of the patriarchy I don't value her at all.

And the money I save on not giving her a funeral (actually I wonder if I could sell the carcass?) could be used to buy pornography, of which I am addicted to and prevents me from recognizing women as human beings.

99. Wow, that woman is insane.

88. Well, I'm certainly glad there is a round condemnation of the foolishness of all PIV intercourse....

....being rape.

Certainly, we can ALL agree here at DU, anyone who would push such an agenda has severe, SEVERE issues, and is certainly not worthy of any attention as a legitimate academic, sociological, or human behavioral "expert".

90. Their argument is PIV=Rape fanatics were just taken out of context

No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. ... The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the all sex is rape slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

Dworkin (and others) idea of "consensual" PIV is so considerably different than the mainstream view of intercourse that the 'all-sex-is-rape' charge is not that far off. I read Dworkin's book Intercourse and I know exactly what her intent was and yes she does refer to it as rape. I've also read the opinions of many radical feminists and they mirror the same idea.

The truly funny part here is that some seem to believe that Dworkin's retraction, or explanation, or whatever you want to call it was actually not much if any better than what she originally wrote. What she is basically saying is that what the vast majority of the population would refer to as heterosexual intercourse includes "conquest, possession, and violation". So she backs off the rape charge, yet still refers to PIV as a "violation". How this is any less nutty is anyone's guess.

91. She never said that, and besides, she took it back. You know, the thing she never said.

Both obvious, and easily disproven falsehoods.

What ACTUALLY happened is people beyond the insular little circle of choir-preach-ees starting deciphering her gibberish, and that of Brownmiller, and MacKinnon, and later Jeffries, etc. and started translating it into English people could actually understand.

At which point, many people who otherwise might have been inclined to take at face value the assertion that Dworkin was a rational "Feminist leader", all of a sudden said "the movement I thought was about equality is really about making men 'give up their precious erections'? Ahh, What The Everlasting Fuck?"

So Dworkin, seemingly aware that he had a PR problem on her hands, eventually attempted to backpedal on or "qualify" some of the crazier shit she had said. But she never actually repudiated it.

Accusing DUers of lying and comparing them to Romney? This post is rude, hurtful, insensitive, and over the top. I don't know why the people in this group are so hatefully obsessed with a few feminists, but the least they could do is keep their disagreements civil.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:24 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is abundantly clear that the alerter is woefully uninformed on this subject and taking exception to a post she doesn't like.
Truth hurts sometimes. Grow up and get over it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I couldn't begin to tell you what's going on in this enormous thread -- but it seems like a lot of insults flying back and forth. Tie goes to the poster.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

110. It's the new country friendly twisty..

though I don't know how friendly a place with the name of Dreadful Acres can be.

Perhaps it's similar to the farm in a Criminal Minds episode I saw last week..in which the female property owner kidnapped men, strung them up and kept them in the barn, until eventually they were used for fertilizer on her tomato plants. That'll teach the "patriarchy"..

In her new blog, she did offer some more insights into her decision...

I’m just gonna say it: I just don’t feel like writing about prostitution, abortion, pornography, FGM, high heels, or shitbag straight dudes anymore. IBTP has been an enormously gratifying and edumuckational endeavor, but let’s face it. Patriarchy is depressing, and I’ve been stinkeye-deep in blaming it for years. It cannot have escaped your notice that I’d started repeating myself.

111. I would imagine that maintaining such a tremendous degree of hate

for a full half (well ~49%) of the human race during your every waking moment must be exhausting.

Perhaps she's just tired?

/I doubt she'll really give it up though. Such behaviors become ingrained after so long. I have to suspect some misandry will sneak in there from time to time. Even if it's just going to be about gardening and the like. "The rain beat down my petunias the other day in a way reminiscent of the way 99.99% of men beat their wives and daughters because the patriarchy!"

126. Male privilege means the men are invulnerable

women are helpless victims.

Hence we are open to all sorts of mockery. They are not.

/this dynamic flips 180 when discussing work: wherein women are tougher than any man and men are incompetent wimps.

//at some point the blatant contradictions become difficult to hide under the rug. When that happens you just point out that "hide under a rug" could be a sexist slur against women because traditionally that would be their role in the house.

119. Well some people feel the need to make such claims

Because evolutionarily speaking the folks that made the most ridiculous claims would attract the largest following and thus could ensure the largest pool of mates and maximize their reproductive potential.

125. "Political Correctness" is a term MADE UP BY ITS CRITICS, which was never used seriously!!!!

Seen On DU!™

...I guess all those memories I have of people using the term in all earnest, total seriousness on College Campuses in the mid-80s... I must have imagined it. To be fair, I was smoking large amounts of pot at the time.

128. There is, 'sadly'--- "No discussion of porn" in the US Political Debate: Um, not true.

"Instead, one of America's major political parties is looking to redefine rape."

Seen on DU! ™

No, there is no "instead". The SAME party that wants to tell women they can't get abortions or use birth control, wants to stop consenting adults from appearing in, or looking at, consenting adult porn.

So there's the "discussion of porn". If one feels the need to "do something about it! Right FUCKING NOW!!!! ", they need look no further than our old pal Rick Santorum- and the 2012 GOP Platform.

129. Seen on DU: "DU3 Sucks!"

With the usual suspect(s) chiming in in complete agreement. You know, if I find myself spending a bunch of time somewhere, and I come to the conclusion that the place sucks, I have the good sense to just leave. But then, I`m not an authoritarian, pseudo-intellectual who feels my sole purpose for existing is to educate the hapless rubes I willingly surround myself with.

140. Yep.. And, of course...

Now we're bad, bad, bad doodbroz for making fun of it, without gravedancing sufficiently on the jackass zombie in question. Even though I personally wasn't even talking about that jackass, but rather was expecting the guys who were schooling them in their porn thread to be the next victims.

149. Here's what Bertie had to say about it...

"If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years."
-- Bertrand Russell

144. Some won't leave....

....because they know this is one of the few places that would actually tolerate the questionable content they generate without A) Banning them or B) Ridiculing them far worse, I mean EONS worse than what they claim to get here.

Clearly this study is defining the very insertion of a penis into a mouth as a "physically aggressive act". And who'da thunk this sort of physically aggressive act would turn up in SO MUCH PORN????

And one which, surprisingly enough, is done by men to women more frequently than the reverse.

However my amateur field studies of human reproduction have indicated to me that it is far simpler, logistically, for a woman to 'obstruct the breathing' of a man when he is performing oral sex on her, than the other way around.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, if everyone is consenting.... and communicating, maybe by hand signals.

159. So does "Fuck me!" count as "verbal aggression"?

167. I think the fact that "spanking" is the #1 "aggressive act" in the study, says it all.

If people want to fall all over themselves to defend the study- and the obvious agenda-pushing people behind it- great. I still call bullshit on the definition of "gagging" and I'm not the only one.

Remember, the definition is "visibly obstructing breathing"- not an assertion by the person in the film that they couldn't breathe. Remember, 95% of the people "appeared to be enjoying themselves". Now, I realize that porn isn't real, but that also ought to cast some doubt on whether or not the 800 or so acts of "gagging" really involved not being able to breathe.

It's the determination of the researchers, the same ones who saw all the aggressive "spanking".

I'd be highly interested to find out what the specific criteria they used for these determinations were. Because it looks to me like they have defined blowjobs, period, as "gagging" and as such "aggression".

169. A religious right group? Imagine that.

170. I saw this and thought about replying but then thought better of it

You know what I taught my daughter yesterday? How to air up the tires in her car. People should spend less time trying to pick a mate for their kids and more time teaching them how to be self reliant. A self reliant person can pick a mate based on what they want rather than what they need.

172. Hmm.. Primarily right-wing religious zealots...

173. is this thread really about some troll that came into an OP of mine. all this was built up from a

troll that was immediately called out and banned? is this really what you men keep kicking and using to accuse us women of as "Primarily right-wing religious zealots"? and you are not a little bit embarrassed by the dishonesty?

The author of the "study" was Mary Anne Layden, who is a far right wing nutbag pseudoscientist who claimed that women who watch porn are more likely to get raped.

I pointed these things out to you here, which you ignored other than to curiously self-delete. Numerous people pointed this out to the OP who refused to self delete while "us women" gleefully kicked the thread and completely ignored the far right wing homophobic associations. This was all pointed out in this thread.